The stark tone of the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2008 is a dramatic departure from their normally staid and frequently rosy projections about the world's energy future (I presented highlights from the piece in this proceeding post). The report's opening statement that current world energy trends are "patently unsustainable" will no doubt receive the most attention in headlines across the blogosphere and mainstream news. But in this post, I want to delve deeper into the key statement that follows it:

"It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply."

While the environmental community focuses primarily on the latter of those two concerns, the IEA appropriately recognizes that the future of human prosperity depends on our ability to tackle both challenges: decarbonizing the energy supply and providing ample and affordable energy supplies to power global development.

In short, the IEA confirms what is perhaps the central challenge of the 21st century: developing clean and affordable energy sources to power the globe.

Continue reading "IEA Report Confirms Clean and Cheap Energy Needed to Power Global Development" »

With a new bailout for Detroit on the table, there's a lot of talk about getting some "grand bargain" with automakers out of the deal: automakers will agree to some terms, like producing more efficient vehicles, in exchange for the loans.

In fact, the direct loans approved by the 2007 Energy Bill require auto companies to use the funds to retool factories that produce vehicles that get 25% better fuel economy than the average vehicle in it's class. That's a start.

But the real grand bargain, in my opinion, is to bust out of this incremental improvements mentality for fuel economy. We don't need incremental improvements, we need exponential improvements in fuel economy. Here's how it could work...

Continue reading "A Real Grand Bargain: Radically Re-invent the American Automobile" »

In 2005, with GM and Ford teetering perilously close to bankruptcy, the Breakthrough Institute created the Healthcare for Hybrids proposal with Senator Barack Obama, Representative Jay Inslee, and the Center for American Progress, a plan which would have linked fuel-economy increases to relieving health care costs for U.S. automakers. Today, with the industry again on the brink of collapse, we invite you to join us is exploring a new question for the new era:

What will it take to reinvent the American auto industry?

We will publish the best responses on our home page, www.thebreakthrough.org. Please submit your op-eds to oped@thebreakthrough.org and paste or type your content into the body of the message; please do not send attachments.

Continue reading "Can America Reinvent the Auto Industry?" »

The good news: an elite consensus is crystallizing around the need for massive economic stimulus funded by deficit spending. Hundreds of economists are calling for stimulus on the scale of 2-3 percent of GDP -- or $300-500 billion per year, equivalent to the expected decline in U.S. consumption as a result of the housing market collapse -- to confront the recession head-on.

The bad news: this growing consensus may only support short-term stimulus investments - such as aid to state and local governments, extended unemployment benefits, and rebate checks - without any long-term economic strategy. Infrastructure spending is gaining support, but mostly for proposals that have already been planned and scheduled. Given the increasingly dim prospects for long-term U.S. competitiveness, it's critical that we think smart and act quickly to secure our economic future. As Harvard Business School guru Michael Porter put it in last week's BusinessWeek cover story:

Continue reading "America Needs a New Growth Strategy" »

This is the second post in a continuing series delving into Barack Obama's opportunity to capture this political moment and provide a direction for energy policy and economic growth in the 21st century. Part 1 is here.

As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of President-elect of the United States of America, we are witnessing an historic realignment of the American political landscape. With the election of our nation's first African-American president, record voter turnout, and a dramatically redrawn electoral map, it seems that anything is possible now.

However, while Obama clearly has a new mandate to lead our nation, electoral mandates are fickle and even this one could fade in time. President-elect Obama has just 76 days to prepare for his inauguration. Then the real work of governing will begin, and what Obama decides to do in his first 100 days will either cement or erase the wave of popular support the President-elect rides today.

His job won't be easy. On January 20th, President-elect Obama will inherit the White House along with a plethora of pressing challenges all competing for his attention. There will be no time for baby steps, and President Obama must show bold and effective leadership right out of the gate. Furthermore, while the economic crisis will remain his top concern in the short-run, Obama cannot afford to ignore longer-term challenges and must develop synergistic solutions that can tackle multiple problems at once.

Thankfully, Barack Obama has stated that building a new energy economy will be his top priority upon assuming office. If he fully integrates this effort with his shorter-term economic stimulus plans, Obama could effectively tackle several priorities - economy recovery, energy security, and global warming - simultaneously. And getting this job done right could cement Obama's electoral mandate and pave the way for a truly transcendent presidency.

Continue reading "President-elect Barack Obama's New Energy Mandate, Part 2" »

China's greenhouse gas emissions could more than double by 2020, according to a new report released by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Beijing has been reluctant to release official data on greenhouse gas from the nation's fast-growing use of coal, oil and gas. This new study from the state-run institute breaks that reticence and sends another clear reminder that China is where our quest for climate stability will be won or lost.

"To a significant degree, our planet's energy and environmental future is now being written in China," says the study's authors. And the only way that story has a happy ending is if China has access to clean and cheap energy sources to power its sustainable development.

Continue reading "China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Double in Coming Decade" »

The Breakthrough Institutes' position on carbon pricing and cap and trade is frequently mischaracterized. As sometimes vocal critics of cap and trade and regulation-centric approaches to climate solutions, we're all too often thrown together with real opponents of serious action that misuse similar arguments to sow confusion and inaction.

In stark contrast, the Breakthrough Institutes' criticism and concerns about cap and trade are motivated by the desire to see advocates and policymakers adopt successful strategies and policies that can truly put our nation and our planet on a path to climate stability and sustained prosperity. With the climate crisis increasingly urgent, our economy heading south, and a new president and congress soon to be elected, climate and clean energy advocates face a critical moment to re-evaluate our strategies and policies and ensure that we can successfully advance climate solutions in the coming year. In that context in particular, we remain steadfast in the position that our efforts are ill-served by continuing forward with a blinding focus on cap and trade that frequently obscures the critical technology innovation challenge at the true heart of our quest for climate stability (and continued and expanded global prosperity).

In a recent discussion with Eric Pooley, I tried to set the record straight and articulate as clearly as possible where the Breakthrough Institute stands on emissions caps and carbon prices and why. Since that piece was long and covered several subjects, I've reposted and reprised the section on cap and trade and carbon pricing here. So, let the record stand...

Continue reading "Let the Record Stand" »

Eric Pooley's recent piece in Slate, "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," sparked a lot of discussion and thought here at Breakthrough. Pooley is right that climate advocates would be best served finding a "Trojan horse" to advance climate solutions within an economic recovery framework. But his recommendations that the next president advance a cap and trade program sparked both my response, "Can Cap and Dividend Really Save the Economy or the Planet?" and a round table discussion with several climate and policy experts on the opportunities and challenges for new U.S. administration.

I invited Pooley to respond to my post, which was highly critical of the political chances of a Cap and Dividend scheme in today's political and economic climate. Below the fold you'll find our continued dialog on the political challenges and opportunities facing climate advocates in the coming year.

Continue reading "Cap and Trade Isn't the Only Game In Town - Continued Dialog with Eric Pooley" »

The economy is all that matters now, and climate advocates - and the next President - would be wise to develop a strategic "Trojan horse" to advance their ecological goals within the framework of economic recovery. That's the thesis of "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," an article appearing in Slate last week by Eric Pooley. 

Pooley gets the political analysis right, accurately diagnosing the potentially incurable political malady that dooms the chances of expansive carbon regulation in today's economic climate.  But when it comes time to prescribe the remedy, Pooley is off-the-mark, arguing that a Cap and Dividend proposal is just what the doctor ordered. 

Sorry, but that's the wrong answer.  Unfortunately, Pooley is not alone in his prescribed solution, and it's time we took a close look at the obstacles to climate action and see just how far Cap and Dividend gets us (hint: it's not very far...)

Continue reading "Can Cap and Dividend Really Save the Economy or the Planet?" »

Ted and Michael's latest op-ed from the LA Times, "The Green Bubble Bursts," makes the argument that the Democrats lost control of the energy issue when they tried to pass the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would raise energy prices at a time when anxiety over energy prices was at an all time high because of four dollar a gallon gas. Republicans hammered them on the floor of the Senate, and then picked up on drilling and took ownership of energy in their biggest victory since they lost both houses in 2006.

Here are some responses to the LA Times piece:

At Daily Kos, Meteor Blades recaps the need for an investment-centered energy agenda in a post called "Making Clean Energy Cheap".

On The New Republic's environment and energy blog, Day Olopade has taken issue with Ted and Michael in her post, "The Green Bubble Hasn't Burst."

And over at Climate Progress, our colleague Joe Romm has rolled out this.

I will be updating this post as more responses surface. Stay tuned.

Joe,

Your strategy, as usual, is to shoot the messenger rather than confront the facts. This is what you did when you attacked Nature for publishing Roger Pielke, Chris Greene, and Tom Wigley’s “Dangerous Assumptions” about faster-than-expected emissions increases. This is what you did when the International Energy Agency came out and said that stabilization requires technology “breakthroughs” (their word). This is what you did when you attacked those of us who support adaptation as “delayers.” And this is what you are doing in response to the accumulating evidence that governments won’t raise the price of dirty energy to deal with global warming.

Continue reading "An Open Letter to Joseph Romm" »

A large chunk of the reason we are in this current financial crisis is that investors were pouring money into the housing market, creating a bubble that inevitably burst. Investors put their money into sectors of the economy that are experiencing growth, and in the early years of this decade, the only sector that was experiencing consistent growth was housing.

The bailout being kicked around inside the beltway this week will do little more than maintain the liquidity of financial firms whose collapse could send devastating shockwaves around the global economy. Any regulation that is further imposed will serve to ensure that financial firms are a little more conservative in their leverage practices and their credit-swapping. However, in a sense, this only brings our economy back to square one.

Continue reading "Back to Square One, and Beyond" »

Financial meltdown is nearing the end of its first week and Congress is poised to consider $700 billion in emergency legislation. What are the implications for clean energy and climate? Here's my best guess.

1. Automakers will get their bail-out. The automakers want $25 billion, which looks like chump change against the $1 trillion bailout. It looks very much like they'll get it. The question is, what will we get for our $25 billion?

Continue reading "A Breakthrough Crisis? Risks and Opportunities from the Coming Financial Bailout" »

For 20 years, liberals and conservatives have been locked in a debate about the relative seriousness of climate change. Conservatives have either denied that it was happening or played down its significance, while liberals and environmentalists have tended to see it as ecological apocalypse meriting either extreme personal sacrifice or a supposed cost-free regulatory fix.

That debate is now undergoing a major shift. Conservatives like Jim Manzi, Newt Gingrich and others recognize that humans are affecting the climate and that something should be done about it. Liberals and environmentalists, like Joe Romm and most recently Al Gore, are beginning to recognize the political futility of peddling sacrifice, and have started emphasizing the need to make clean energy cheap. To be sure, both camps are still far apart in their view of global warming, with Romm seeing it as a future hell on earth and Manzi viewing it as little more than a rounding error. But if we fixate on these radically divergent views of the problem we risk missing some signs of agreement over what should be done about it.

Continue reading "Why We Can Disagree to Agree" »

By Genevieve Bennett, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

See our policy fact sheet

"Ignorance," Thaddeus Stevens once noted, "is more costly than taxes." Wise words - and indicative of a kind of long-term thinking in which we only seem to engage in fits and starts here in the U.S.

Consider that federal financing of loans for higher education and workforce training is a relatively new development. 2008 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the National Defense Education Act, a bill that authorized $6.7 billion (2008 dollars) to improve access to and quality of education in strategic defense-related fields: science, math, engineering, technology, foreign languages, and area studies.

Continue reading "A Smart Investment In Energy Education" »

Written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold

Look behind many of the key technologies of the 20th and 21st centuries, and you'll see a long history of military involvement. The U.S. armed forces kick-started American dominance in civil aviation through their demand for planes during WWI, and later drove the growth of the computer industry by buying every microchip and supercomputer in sight during the 60's. Military scientists and military-funded researchers developed the ideas behind the Internet, nuclear power, and personal computing. Indeed, the U.S. military has arguably been the greatest force for technological growth in modern times. And now, it's time for renewable energy to get the Army treatment.

Let's look back to the 1960s. Jack Kilby, a scientist at Texas Instruments, had pioneered an innovative circuit design a few years earlier by packing several transistors onto a single conductive "chip," creating a "microchip" that stood to be more reliable, better suited to mass production, and far faster than existing circuitry. It was the military - not the consumer market - that quickly realized the strategic value of Kilby's achievement. Throughout the early 1960's, military agencies bought virtually every microchip manufacturers could produce. These purchases enabled big advances in military technology, facilitating projects like Minuteman and Apollo and cementing America's position as a military power.

And a funny thing happened along the way.

Continue reading "From Microchips to Clean Tech: The Military's Role in a Renewable Energy Future" »

This is a response to Max Epstein's guest post, "In Defense of Carbon Pricing: Why Clean Energy RD&D Isn't Enough." Our response is written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold.

Before anything else, I want to thank Max for his thoughtful post. His arguments have been a big help in clarifying our own thinking.

In my response, I'm going to try to define the problem we're trying to solve, and clarify the differences I see between a carbon price driven regime (as Max advocates) and an investment-led regime (as we're more fond of at Breakthrough). I'm then going to explore the political feasibility of a carbon price, and what a politically sustainable carbon price can and can't do to address climate change. In doing so, I hope to show that, for now, we can't rely on carbon pricing to drive the shift to a clean energy economy.

Continue reading "Breakthrough Responds: Why Carbon Pricing Won't Cut It" »

We've asked our friend, UMD student, and occasional Washington Post editorialist Max Epstein to contribute his thoughts on carbon pricing to the blog. Our response, by Breakthrough Generation Fellow Zach Arnold, is here.

In the wake of the failed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, there has been a widespread reevaluation of whether Cap & Trade is the most effective strategy to avert catastrophic climate change. At first many promoted a carbon tax instead, but recently there has been a call to reconsider the central focus on pricing carbon itself. Following Lieberman-Warner's abrupt death in the Senate, Michael Shellenberger wrote that the new way forward should focus on making renewable energy cheap, not polluting sources expensive. In "Scrap Kyoto," Shellenberger and Nordhaus call for a massive public investment in clean technology research and deployment. Joseph Romm in Nature calls for massive subsidized deployment of existing renewable technology, relegating R&D to the "longer-term effort aimed at a new generation of technologies for the emissions reduction effort after 2040." However, such efforts would be insufficient without a price on carbon as well.

Continue reading "Guest Post: In Defense of Carbon Pricing: Why Clean RD&D Isn't Enough" »

By Adam Zemel, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Andy Revkin has blogged today on a debate he is engaged in on the threads of Joe Romm's climateprogress.org. It's almost unclear what they are debating over before I remember that Joe Romm categorically rejects any calls for public investment in energy technology R&D as the machinations of climate deniers/delayers -- or at least as "misguided" efforts.

Romm is probably right that this is the Debate of the Decade as it concerns the best way to transition to a clean energy system.  Revkin posits that we need public investment in R&D in order to make scalable and bring down the price of clean energy.  Romm himself admits that he has called for R&D for the past twenty years, but claims that the time when this research would have helped has passed.  It is now time to focus primarily (if not entirely) on deploying the technologies currently on hand.

Continue reading "Research, Develop, Deploy and Repeat" »

By Chris Knight, Breakthrough Generation fellow

A paper by political scientist Glenn Fong starts out with a 1998 quote by Bill Gates:

"The PC industry is leading our nation's economy in to the 21st century...There isn't an industry in America that is more creative, more alive and more competitive. And the amazing thing is, all this happened without any government involvement."

Fong goes to on describe the myriad ways the federal government--mostly through its Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) --was involved in nearly every aspect of the development of the personal computer, from the human-computer interface (HCI) to the graphical user interface (GUI), to picture icons, to computer networking. Bill Gates, brilliant as he might be, seems deluded about the history of the computer.

Continue reading "Beyond Market Fundamentalism: Government Leadership in Energy Innovation" »

By Helen Aki, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

This post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay tuned for more...

The coolest car of the 21st Century doesn't go "vroom!"...

...it goes "whizz!"

Tesla Motors, an innovative electric car start-up straight from the heart of Silicon Valley, is now producing its 2008 Roadster, an all-electric sports car than can go 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds. High-tech and emissions-free, the Roadster celebrates a future that is not only sustainable, but sexy and fun. (Sports car enthusiasts may find it disconcerting, however, that when you hit the gas, the only noise from the engine is an electrical "whizz!")

Continue reading "Electify America: The Coolest Car of the 21st Century Doesn't Go Vroom" »

By Jesse Jenkins, Breakthrough Generation Co-Director

This post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay tuned for more...

Toyota Motor Company announced today it's intention to retool two U.S. manufacturing plants currently building giant, full-size trucks and SUVs to instead build hybrid-electric vehicles.  Meanwhile, Ford is expected to reveal more details this month on their plans to retool several plants to build the more fuel efficient models they currently sell in Europe.

As automakers scramble to react to rapidly shifting customer preference driven by spiking fuel prices, isn't it time for the United States government to make investments that help re-tool and re-charge the American auto industry?

Continue reading "Electrify America: Re-tooling and Re-charging the American Auto Industry" »